VOTE 'NO' ON ANNEXATION

Palm Beach County's desire to protect virgin land from intense development is a noble venture.

But while its cause is worthy, the County Commission's tactic -- a charter amendment that would force cities to seek commission approval to annex either undeveloped land or rural neighborhoods -- is objectionable and over-reaching.

Currently, municipalities must seek approval from a majority of voters in neighborhoods targeted for annexation, or from the owners of undeveloped property. Hence the name "voluntary annexation," since it comes with the willing participation of those affected and has historically allowed residents and landowners alike to control their own destiny.

But a prickly problem has emerged, especially in the western reaches, where growth-hungry communities have pushed aggressively beyond their borders, raising valid concerns about chaotic, mismanaged growth overwhelming rural areas.

The county, having a broader vision than most cities, is right to tackle this growing dilemma. That's why the Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board supported the referendum concept when it was first discussed.

But as written, the amendment clearly oversteps the bounds of fair play.

It not only seeks to protect undeveloped land, it also targets "rural neighborhoods," leaving that phrase open to interpretation and potentially superceding the will of a majority of residents living in those communities.

More problematic, the new ordinance created by the amendment would require a "super-majority" vote of the County Commission, or the support of at least five of seven commissioners, making the approval even harder to achieve. But voters won't be informed of that unusual provision by the referendum language, which makes no mention of the super-majority requirement.

No wonder Wellington and a growing contingent of cities are seeking a court order removing the amendment from the ballot.

The county has the right priorities in protecting its rural balance, but shoving its will down the throat of municipalities -- especially in such a misleading manner -- is no way to accomplish any objective, especially if it wants the cooperation and respect of municipal leaders in confronting future challenges.

Rather than taking such a divisive stance, the county should bring municipalities back to the negotiating table with a neighborly spirit and hash out a countywide growth plan everyone can live with.